A PSNI investigation into an alleged act of indecent exposure by the man who was charged with the murder of Katie Simpson was “inadequate”, the Northern Ireland’s Police Ombudsman has found.

The ombudsman revealed the complainant was failed after officers took no additional statements despite there being three potential witnesses, and did not listen to an allegedly threatening voice message sent to the victim.

The PSNI has previously apologised for “unacceptable failings” in their investigation into the death of the 21-year-old showjumper.

Simpson, from Tynan, Co Armagh, died in Altnagelvin Area Hospital almost a week after an incident in Gortnessy Meadows, Lettershandoney.

Police originally thought she had taken her own life.

It was not until the following year that Jonathan Creswell, the partner of Simpson’s sister, was arrested on suspicion of murder.

The trial of Creswell (36), for the murder of Simpson ended in April 2024 after he took his own life following the first day of proceedings.

After Creswell’s death a woman made a complaint to the Police Ombudsman raising concerns on how police had dealt with a report she made in January 2016, that he exposed himself to her at a horse yard in Co Antrim some months prior.

The ombudsman found a number of shortcomings in the police investigation, such as the officer that was initially assigned to the case recording only one witness statement during the four months she was in charge.

I covered the Katie Simpson case from the start. The police failures were appalling

No statements were obtained from three other witnesses, including a potential eyewitness.

A second officer subsequently allocated the case did not obtain any further statements, and neither officer listened to a recording of an allegedly threatening voice message sent by Creswell.

Furthermore, the ombudsman found the file submitted to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) by the second investigating officer was inaccurate.

It stated that Creswell was known to police only for motoring offences, when he had previously been jailed for violent offending against a woman; and incorrectly stated that there was no outstanding evidence and no other witnesses in the case.

The PPS subsequently directed that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute but advised that if Creswell was interviewed about the allegation in future, the file could be resubmitted for further consideration.

When interviewed by Police Ombudsman investigators, the police officer initially assigned to the case said she would have obtained the outstanding witness statements if she had kept ownership of the investigation.

The second officer, who was allocated the case five months after the initial allegation, said he had not been instructed to obtain any further evidence and believed his role to have been in a monitoring capacity.

He added that he had not considered Creswell’s previous violent offending to be relevant to the case.

The Police Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations, Nikki Davis, said police “failed the complainant, both as a woman and as a victim”.

“Indecent exposure is a serious crime and can indicate a potential for escalating sexual offending, so it is important that reports are robustly investigated,” she said.

“We also know that sexual crime is underreported, and that it takes great courage for victims to go to the police.

“Unless reports of sexual offences are properly investigated, victims will be less likely to come forward, offenders will remain free to reoffend, and efforts to combat violence and sexual offending against women and girls will be undermined.”

She added: “Indecent exposure is a non-contact sexual offence and a form of sexual violence, so the prior conviction was entirely relevant and should have been disclosed to the PPS.

“It is widely acknowledged that police should be looking at behavioural patterns across incidents and seeking to identify where repeat offending might indicate escalating risk.

“That clearly did not happen in this case.”

The Police Ombudsman also found that the officers had made inadequate inquiries to locate and interview Creswell.

Davis did note that the officers had attempted to contact Creswell by phone, visited an address associated with him, made inquiries relating to his equestrian background and placed alerts on police systems about two vehicles linked to him.

In a misconduct file submitted to the PSNI, the Police Ombudsman recommended that the two officers should be disciplined for failing to properly investigate the case and not providing adequate updates to the complainant.

After considering the file, the PSNI determined that the issues identified would be better addressed by taking measures intended to improve the officers’ conduct.

Police Ombudsman investigators were unable to complete their inquiries into a separate allegation involving a different police officer who retired during the course of the investigation.

The complainant believed the officer was trying to stop her from talking to the media. Before retiring the officer provided a statement that he had called her to advise of the intended police response to a media query, and about how information about the case could be reported and used.

Although the complaint to the Police Ombudsman’s Office was initially closed, a fresh investigation was commenced upon receipt of further correspondence from the complainant. – PA